Monday, 19 December 2016

According to this analysis based on PISA scores immigrants are decreasing the national IQs of the West. To put it crassly they're making us dumb.

There's probably a flaw in the methodology but living in Toronto for as long as I have I'm inclined to think it's correct for the most part. If our immigration system is designed to filter for the "best and brightest" it's apparent it's not doing it's job. Or the more reasonable explanation is that Canada doesn't attract the world's "best and brightest" at all and has to settle for what washes up on our shores which tend to be the third-world's C and D students. When you're the safety school country to America's Harvard or the U.K.'s Oxford you're forced to settle for what comes your way.

Come to think of it allowing immigrants from the third-world to settle in the West is a lose/lose situation. For one, these mostly unremarkable people add no value to the Western countries they settle in since the West already has high standards of achievement to which their contributions would be negligible at best. And secondly, by being the "best and brightest" of their country and removing themselves from it makes their native countries dumber and worse off. Everyone loses in this scenario except the immigrant.

It's clear to me Canada and the developing world are better off if Canada doesn't accept immigrants from the third-world at all.

Tuesday, 13 December 2016

I did a
Google search for “racial diversity is bullshit” and I didn’t find
anything. I found “diversity sucks” but I didn’t find “racial diversity is bullshit” so I’m writing this
blog post to fill that void. Why? Because of “hate” G-d-dammit and there’s not
enough of it on the internet! And because
I’m an ass like that, that’s why! And because
racial diversity really is bullshit!

So where do
I get off saying that?

Well, I
live in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It’s
Canada’s largest city and presently the fourth largest city in North America. It’s a clean, relatively crime
free city given its size but aside from that it doesn’t have much else going for it. This is why it has to brag about
being the most diverse, cosmopolitan city in the world as if that’s an
accomplishment worth bragging about. When
you’re the largest city in what is essentially a safety school country for
immigrants wanting to settle in the West attracting a numerous and diverse
group of people from mostly underdeveloped, shit-tier countries is about as
easy as getting Justin Trudeau to stop and pose for the camera. That’s like the brightest patio light bragging about how bright it is because it attracts the most numerous
and most diverse group of insects. (Sure
you’re the brightest patio light but you got all these damn bugs around you
diminishing your brilliance.) So it
should come as no surprise to learn that Toronto, with over 200 years of white
settlement behind it, has become a white minority city within a single
generation. With having over 50% of its population being non-white and I myself having lived in Toronto for as long as
I have I think that makes me well qualified to say racial diversity is
bullshit.

Think about
it. What’s so great about racial
diversity besides satisfying some sort of xenophilic fetish or to virtue
signal to the world how your country is not racist and by implication neither
are you? It’s not as if the amount of melanin
or lack thereof in one’s skin endows an individual with some set of special
skills, talents, or knowledge unavailable to anyone else even through
education, experimentation, and hard work.

Not good
enough? How about the observation that
non-whites in white majority countries think racial diversity is bullshit
too? Since actions speak louder than
words settlement patterns in our major cities infer this. Non-whites will vocally express the wonderful
benefits racial diversity brings to white majority societies (benefits only
white majority countries are in need of apparently and not non-white ones) and
then retreat to one of their ethnic enclaves revealing a preference to live among their own. It appears they have
little interest in racial diversity in their ethnic ghettos but think it’s a
great thing for the wider white society.
Why this is so, I think, is because most non-whites immigrate to the West for economic reasons and not to participate in some grand multicultural program
to “enrich” western nations. Therefore
an expression by whites to maintain the white majority composition of their
respective countries would frustrate those ambitions. So it’s best to tell them that non-whites in
their midst is a good thing and they should accept it even to the point where
they become an insignificant demographic minority in their own countries. It’s the racial colonization of white
societies and they’re completely fine with that because colonization is
wonderful as long as you’re the one doing it.

Even the
progressive left thinks racial diversity is bullshit. Given the left’s propensity for cognitive
dissonance they preach the joys of racial diversity out of one side of
their mouth while celebrating miscegenation out of the other where in the case
of the latter were it allowed to run its full course it would extinguish racial diversity altogether. Since race-mixing
it the ultimate expression for the left that we live in a post-racial world the
elimination of racial diversity through miscegenation is the logical endgame. This is because they know, if not consciously then subconsciously, that
racial diversity is bullshit since all it does is create problems, problems
they acknowledge but won’t admit to. And if they do admit to racial diversity’s problems it’s always whitey’s
fault who, for some, needs to be bred out of existence. I guess getting rid of whitey, in fact any kind of racial diversity, is the only way a leftist's imaginings of a post-racial Utopia can be realized.

So what has
racial diversity wrought? No benefits
outside the superficial while creating problems where none existed before
through the creation of social tensions and unnecessary, wasteful distractions
in the economic and political realms. This
can be seen in the now very commonplace complaint that there’s too many of X in
position Y suggesting that it’s a problem where the placement of Z in position
Y is the solution. However, the problem
isn’t that there’s too many of X in position Y it’s that there’s too many of Z
making it into a problem. Remove Z from
the equation and there’s no problem. Or
just don’t introduce Z into the equation at all.

But that’s
what we’ve done. We’ve introduced Z and
created a problem where none existed before (and as if we don’t have enough
problems already). Government being “too white” wasn’t a problem until we allowed too many non-whites to settle in the
country and make into a problem. The
lack of racial diversity in the workforce wasn’t a problem until we allowed
non-whites to settle in our society in large numbers and make it into a problem. Now we waste valuable resources on enforcing racial
diversity policies condemning us to settle for second place at best since
racial diversity doesn’t guarantee quality and competency. If racial diversity created the best outcome
it can be best explained as a happy accident.

Racial
diversity distracts us from addressing the real roots of social inequality
which is found in our class based society.
It’s not white privilege you morons, it’s class privilege and many benefit from
our class based society and have no wish to change it. This is especially true for the 1%. Parachuting some POC into some position of influence and promoting them beyond their competency gives the illusion of
social progress while maintaining the class power structure. Meanwhile the lower classes fight among
themselves over the scraps of food the upper class lets fall to the floor from
their dinner table where non-whites promote preferences for their particular
skin type to give them an advantage. It’s
the old “divide and conquer” strategy to keep the unruly rabble from realizing
they have the power and rebelling. Without
the distractions and diluting effects of racial diversity solidarity of the lower classes would be easier to obtain.

What’s most
bothersome about racial diversity is that it implies that a racially homogeneous
host society is inherently deficient due to its racially homogeneous character
and only the introduction of those racially unlike those of the host majority
can make that society whole and function at its greatest potential. It’s suggesting that white majority societies
are lacking some kind of vital nutrient needed for growth and survival that
only non-whites can deliver. This is
insulting! It’s saying that a child who
grew up in a small white majority community in the boonies had a lesser
childhood than one who grew up in a racially diverse “vibrant” community of the
big city. Bullshit!

What’s
patronizing is how the “enrichment” non-whites bring to white majority
societies is understood to be not reciprocal.
Like the “magic negro” of film non-whites exist in white societies to
help whites grow into a more enlightened, civilized people while non-whites are
not expected to change at all.
Non-whites are perfect in their natural state and in no need of the
“enrichment” they bring to whites or to each other. Since whites are lacking how are they to
benefit from non-whites if non-whites are lacking as well? It is therefore understood that whites are enriched
by non-whites but non-whites are not enriched by whites because they don’t need
to be and how can they be if whites are deficient and they’re not? It’s patronizing for whites, in a state of
smug self-awareness, to humbly admit they’re flawed and need to be perfected
through the magical qualities they ascribe to non-white skin. It’s racist and it’s all bullshit!

It’s now
2016, soon to be 2017 (and always “current year”) and the white West is as
racially diverse as it’s ever been and what does it have to show for it? When it was mostly racially homogeneous it was
exploring the solar system, breaking the sound barrier, developing the
internet, creating modern telecommunications; challenging itself through
philosophy, art, and sport; setting global standards in pop culture and
fashion. Today we have safe spaces,
trigger warnings, cultural appropriation, anti-white racism masked as social
justice, economies more dependent on financial trickery than on the production
of real wealth, and where the greatest technological advances we made of late can
be summed up in an inane, overvalued, internet data-mining, productivity
killing company called Facebook. It
appears the more racially diverse the West has become the more mediocre it’s
become but mediocrity is a predictable outcome when diversity is an aspirant
quality, especially racial diversity which, in my lived experience, is
bullshit.

Monday, 7 November 2016

In immigration debates the false equivalence presumes that because an earlier immigrant cohort
successfully integrated into Canadian society future ones will as well. It’s assuming that because Irish Catholics
who came to Canada in the early twentieth century and integrated reasonably
well then so will Middle Eastern Muslims who come to Canada in the early twenty
first.

But past success of one group of
immigrants is no indication of repeated success for future ones especially for
ones that are a completely different group of people altogether. Despite the negative reception Irish Catholic
immigrants may have experienced when settling in early twentieth century North
America they still held much in common with the receiving culture providing a
pathway for acceptance by the host society and greater ease of integration whereas
Arab Muslim have even less in common with the host society if any at all.

And given the current state of technology one
could effectively live in another country while maintaining strong ties with
the native one. The Chinese have been in
North America for well over a century yet the Chinatowns across the continent
haven’t disappeared. They’ve grown in
number. Toronto alone has at least three
now, four, maybe more if you include the GTA yet you’d be hard pressed to find
an Irishtown anywhere in the city. And
given how we’ve abandoned any sense of a common identity in favour of a vague, multicultural
one integration is now subjective and in the eye of the beholder.

Monday, 24 October 2016

Winston
Churchill famously said the best argument against democracy is a five minute
conversation with the average voter and his observation is no less true of
Canadian voters today than it was of British voters back then. How else can you explain the enduring popularity of Justin Trudeau without concluding the average Canadian voter is
too politically ignorant to vote and should be forced to pass a test before
they are allowed to exercise their franchise.
But listening to the pundits you’d be led to believe Canadian voters are
a well informed and politically engaged electorate but they’re giving them too
much credit. They need to hype up
Canadians’ political intellect because they need to be convinced Canadians
believe the same things they do to justify their mistaken perception of themselves
as the voice of the people. They want to
believe Canadians turned on the Conservatives because they opposed the Niqab
ban (they didn’t) and they rallied around the Liberals Syrian refugee
resettlement scheme because it was the Canadian thing to do (not true either). The real reason why Canadians
turned on the Conservatives is because they grew bored of them and wanted
something new.

A review of
the history of the popular vote in past elections reveals how unremarkable the
Liberal victory was. With just 39.5% of
the popular vote it seems pathetic compared to the Progressive Conservatives
50.03% of the popular vote back in 1984 and 43.02% of the popular vote in
1988. And this was when the deservedly
hated Brian Mulroney was party leader.
Indeed, the Liberal’s 39.5% support is slightly poorer compared to the
39.6% Stephen Harper’s Conservatives got in the previous election when the
party secured a majority. And despite
the constant muck thrown at Stephen Harper and his Conservatives by our allegedly
objective press in the run up to the election they still walked away with 31.9%
of the popular vote. They were defeated
but hardly crushed.

Reading the
press you’d think the Liberals destroyed their opposition but they didn’t. Such is the nature of our first-past-the-post
system. You can win a riding and form
the government with the majority of voters voting against you. It’s not a perfect system but a truly perfect
democratic system doesn’t exist. That
didn’t stop the Liberals from trying to give us one even though their effort
was a masked attempt to gerrymander the next election and all elections after
that.

So why did
the Liberals win? Part of it has to do
with the stupefying popularity of their vacuous party leader most of it
fabricated by a media shamelessly acting as Trudeau’s press agents and not the
adversarial fourth estate they pretend to be.
That an obvious nitwit like Justin Trudeau can ascend to the highest
office of an advanced industrialized nation speaks not only of the power of
pedigree but says a lot about the influence of media bias on the people of the nation
that put him there. These are the same
people who detest Stephen Harper but can’t exactly tell you why.

Equally so
they can’t tell you why they voted for the Liberals, or NDP for that matter,
without condemning the Conservatives because they didn’t know where the
Liberals stood on anything because the Liberals didn’t tell you where they stood on anything beyond climate change, diversity, and gender equality, the
holy trinity of fashionable social justice causes guaranteed to get you good
press. Oh and legalized pot. And middle class tax cuts that really aren’t. It was just a carryover from
Trudeau’s bid for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada where he was just as vague and noncommittal about everything
outside of climate change, diversity, and gender equality. Oh, and pot.
You can’t forget about the pot.

Ennui and
not anger is why the Conservatives lost.
The Conservatives had become familiar and boring breeding irrational
contempt in a populace whose personal lives had become equally familiar and
boring compounded by increasing insecurity and a sense of powerlessness to do
anything about it. Elections are great
in that they not only fool people into thinking that they can change their
lives, that they can overcome that sense of powerlessness, through the mere act
of voting but a change of government provides the fleeting novelty their
indebted, precarious, stagnant lives are looking for.

The “hopey,
changey” fluff of the Obama campaign is exemplary in this regard. Not only did Obama provide the illusion of
giving power to the powerless he provided the novelty of voting for America’s
first black President. But “hope” and
“change” was just “marketing pabulum” to avoid discussing important
issues. And given Justin Trudeau’s knack
for sounding stupid when he thinks he’s talking smart the borrowing of pages
from the Democrats’ campaign playbook was a sensible move, choosing to
concentrate on image more so than merit for in Justin’s case, as so for Obama,
there is plenty of the former, not much of the latter.

The Liberals will win the next election. I don’t see how they can lose but a third term is pushing it. I’m hoping by then Canadian’s would have grown tired of Justin Trudeau’s “Look at me!” antics and yearn for a real statesman, not some jet-setting wannabe world celebrity with a messiah complex who cashed in on his politically famous last name and sought the highest office in this country because he lacked both the talent and the intellect to achieve international fame any other way. I doubt very much the Liberals will do anything in power to effect positive change in the lives of Canadians (governments rarely do) but as long as they can be duped by the “hope” and “change” superficiality that is Trudeau the Lesser the longer he will remain “popular” and the Liberals in power.

Sunday, 9 October 2016

Appeal to antiquity/tradition is the position that because something worked for us in the
past we should continue to do it seemingly in perpetuity. This is problematic because it ignores the
modern context. Just because something
worked in the past doesn’t mean it’s still beneficial today.

In
immigration discussions this fallacy manifests itself as the “Canada was built
by immigration” meme. While it may be
historically factual that Canada was built by immigration it’s not an argument
for continued and ever increasing immigration in the present. This is because “current year” Canada is a
different place than the Canada of one hundred years ago. We have to take into consideration the health of the economy, immigration’s impact on the environment, its effects on
social cohesion, technology and its potential impact on the labour market,
among other things.

To
illustrate the absurdity of this argument we can perform a thought experiment where
we imagine a Canada were every space of land is occupied by an individual so
that you couldn’t take a single step in either direction without stepping on
someone’s toes. It would be insane to
continue to allow immigration in this scenario just because tradition demands
it. If the country hadn’t become an
undesirable place to live long before it got to that point it definitely will
become an undesirable place to live when it does. The country’s economy, society, and
institutions would have collapsed under such weight. I acknowledge this is an absurd example
because it’s highly unlikely the country will ever reach that point but it does
bring to light that population sizes do have their limits and immigration cannot
be spoken of independent of a myriad of other considerations solely because it
worked so well for us in the past.
Canadians cities consistently rank in the top tier of best places to
live in the world mostly because they are medium sized cities however unrestrained
immigration will undo that. These once
livable cities will become unlivable, a process already in the making for
Toronto.

If we were to remain true to the "Canada was built by immigration" meme then we would be favouring European immigration almost exclusively because it wasn’t just immigrants who built Canada. It was European Christian immigrants who did.

Monday, 3 October 2016

As if we
need more evidence to drive the point home that Canadians reject multiculturalism
the CBC reports on a CBC-Angus Reid poll that found 68% of Canadians want
minorities to “fit in” by which we mean we want more assimilation and less accommodation. Also, the underlying subtext is we want immigrants
who look more like us so we’re not overwhelmed demographically.

And there’s
nothing wrong with that. It’s completely
understandable. Some will say “that’s
racist” to which I say f*ck that! I’m
really getting tired of hearing that shit because shouting racism isn’t an argument.

This poll suggests,
to me at least, that Canadians don’t see their country as a multicultural one
and don’t want it to be one either. Those who state otherwise harbour the real marginal opinion.

And if a
referendum were held today asking Canadians if they wish to see their country
adopt multiculturalism as the driving social policy guiding the national
character they’d oppose it outright with a clear majority to erase any
confusion.

This is why
it had to be imposed upon us by our self appointed betters in government and
their enablers in the media.

It cannot
be stressed enough that multiculturalism, along with the restructuring of our
immigration system to favour immigration from non-traditional sources, was
conceived out of elite arrogance and not popular will.

Multiculturalism
and mass immigration is cultural and demographic suicide for a host society. I think Canadians have come to understand
this if they hadn’t arrived at that realization already so it shouldn’t be so
shocking to learn that, according to this CBC-Angus Reid poll, the majority of Canadians
have their objections. They know there
was nothing wrong with the old Canada and, quite frankly, would like to have it
back. The new Canada to them is just so
new Coke.

Friday, 23 September 2016

It basically tells us John McCallum is full of shit based on his own government's internal polling. By this I mean Canadians don't want more immigrants despite pronouncements from McCallum to the contrary. And his government knows this. This follows a Nanos poll conducted on behalf of the Globe which saw 16% of Canadians favouring an increase of immigrants with more than twice as many, some 39%, wanting a decrease with 37% thinking the numbers should remain the same. Put another way 76% of Canadians polled don't want an increase in the numbers of immigrants.

Canadians don't want more immigrants and we haven't wanted more immigrants for a long time. Here's an EKOS poll conducted in March of 2015 and published in the Winnipeg Free Press that found 46% of respondents felt there are too many immigrants coming to the country with 41% saying too many of them are non-white.

Despite poll after poll telling the government time after time, be it Liberal or Conservative, that we don't want more immigrants, in fact we want less, they go ahead and give us more immigrants and John McCallum is going to do the same. He's already hinted at it. Since he's already made up his mind his national consultations were just a PR stunt.

Were they to be truthful with us it's too keep, I believe, Canada's housing market from imploding because we're in too deep now and no one has a solution on how to deal with it and no one in Ottawa wants to confront it because no one in Ottawa would know how to handle a crash. It's amateur hour on Parliament Hill for the next four years at least. So it's best to keep pushing it off into the indefinite future with fingers crossed and hope it solves itself for without the housing market Canada's economy doesn't have much going for it at the moment and it's a market driven by debt and cheap money. If cheap money is how immigrants are paying for their shitty urban sprawl houses on incomes from shitty paying jobs many of them get then we're making the situation worse by making the bubble bigger. Because if interest rates were to rise how many people will still be able to afford the house they bought when interest rates were low. If you're a gambling man you might want short Canada's banks.

Wednesday, 21 September 2016

I haven’t
read the Toronto Star ever since comments were disabled at their website. Being denied the opportunity to challenge
their editorial slant in both commentary and selective news reporting I saw
little reason to venture to the paper’s online source and give them my
page-view. It was a stupid business
decision if you ask me – to disable commenting that is – because page-views are
a website’s bread and butter and what better way is there to increase page-views
than to attract those who typically ignore your paper by allowing them the
opportunity to give you a piece of their mind in the comments? TorStar deserves to go bankrupt and it can’t happen fast enough.

That being
said, it’s hard to not notice a headline or two in one of the many Toronto Star
boxes that litter the streets of the city and a recent headline bleated “31,000 Syrians Welcomed.” When I read that I
thought, “Welcomed by whom?” only to quickly realize they mean us Canadians.

It always
bugs me every time the word “welcome” is used to describe the latest batch of
“new Canadians” as if to imply they are wanted here in
the first place. I, for one, don’t
welcome them here at all. They’re not
needed, they bestow no tangible benefits to us a country or people, they clog
up our roads, create more problems than they’re supposed to solve, they drive
down wages while contributing to the general scarcity of good paying jobs, and
generally are oxygen consuming slabs of meat that just get in the way of where
you’re going. Immigrants are overrated
and if it’s meant they’re “welcomed” like a spring thaw after a long, cold,
dark winter then no. It’s more like
“welcomed” like a case of Chlamydia.

“31,000
Syrians Dumped on Canadians” would be a more accurate headline. Or, “31,000 Syrians Imposed on Canadians”
would be another. Perhaps, “31,000
Fashionable Charity Cases of the Virtue-Signaling Class Arrive in Canada, Taxpayers Expected to Now Take Care of Them” would be the most honest if too long. But “Welcome”? Please!
Speak for yourself.

Below the
picture accompanying the print edition of the front-page story ran the text
“Trudeau applauded at UN for Syrian Intake” and that says it all now doesn’t
it? That’s what this is all about it now
isn’t it? Here we have a man of no
accomplishment despite his having great privilege and the advantages that come
with it, whose only contribution to the whole affair is shooting his mouth of
during an election campaign, taking credit for the efforts of others and being
applauded for it. It was an event where
a man of little accomplishment was applauded by many for doing practically nothing. 31,000 Syrians arrived in Canada, with more
to come, on Justin’s insatiable need for narcissistic supply to feed his inveterate
narcissism. It was a cheap and easy PR
stunt to impress the right people and Justin knew others would do the work for
him and he’d get all the accolades.

Let’s
abandon pretension and stop kidding ourselves.
Canada didn’t rush to aid in the Syrian crisis out of altruism. It did so because of the vanity of our
political class. I’m not opposed to
assisting refugees but I object to the way we do it. I don’t agree with uprooting them from their
countries and regions and airlifting them to resettle here permanently which
doesn’t make them refugees anymore but immigrants. But if we didn’t do that then there wouldn’t
be any opportunities for airport photo-ops and pats on the back from the UN
would be shortcoming. Well, I’m not
getting a pat on the back for having refugees dumped into my community and then
being expected to support and accommodate them but then again my last name
isn’t Trudeau. But then again maybe I am getting pat on the back only Prime Minister Potato Head is receiving it on my behalf in New York City. So, you’re welcome I guess???

Tuesday, 6 September 2016

John
McCallum’s national consultation on immigration is a sales pitch and not a
consultation. I’m convinced the targets
are already set and he’s travelling across the country as a public relations stunt.

He wants to
fool Canadians into believing they have a say in establishing immigration
policy even though it’s apparent John McCallum is primarily consulting with those who he knows will tell him what he wants to hear: the members of the
immigration industry and the business lobby.
It’s like the Minister of Public Safety consulting exclusively with
NAMBLA over changes to age of consent laws.
They, along with the immigrants themselves, are prime beneficiaries of
mass immigration and seem to be the only people John McCallum cares to listen
to even though the rest of us are equal, nay greater stakeholders than they are
since we’re the ones mostly affected by the impact of mass immigration not just
financially but also socially, culturally, environmentally, and demographically.

The bullshit
coming out of this guy’s mouth is the same crap shoveled by previous Ministers
irrespective of party affiliation.

Take what
John McCallum said in Alberta I assume with a straight face. He tells us Alberta needs more immigrants
because his consultations have told him that that’s what the laid off oil worker wants. To justify importing more
immigrants than current levels he said, “I think people tend to take a longer
term point of view and there remain labour shortages in some sectors and they
want to be in good shape for when the recovery begins.” He said this in a province currently shedding jobs yet vaguely tells us “labour shortages” remain in “some sectors” whatever
those sectors may be and we need immigrants to prepare us for when the recovery
begins. So we need to stockpile labour for that "any day now" recovery is what he is saying. This is pretty much the same nonsense Jason Kenney said when he doubled down on the immigrants when Canada was
experiencing an economic downturn in 2008 and hasn’t fully recovered from. You’d figure job losses, an
economic downturn, and an overall shitty job market would suggest a cautionary
approach to immigration but nope! In
Canada now we need immigrants to support an economic boom and we need even more
immigrants in an economic bust to prepare for the recovery. One has to wonder what it takes to decrease immigration
targets when negative economic indicators don’t matter anymore?

It should
raise eyebrows every time a Minister of Immigration has these consultations and
the result is always the same: we need more immigrants. Whoever they’re consulting with it’s
definitely not us. I think they know
what the majority thinks about immigration and don’t want to confront it. Instead they prefer to lie to our faces and
tell us we want more immigrants hoping this will be enough to convince us that
the majority actually does want more immigration and the only person who has a
problem with it is you, the sole mass immigration skeptic in the country.

I’m predicting,
hoping to be proven wrong in a not-as-bad-as-I-expected kind of way, the
Liberals will set immigration targets for 2017 at the arbitrary 1% of the
population number. That means 350,000
people will be given their membership cards to club Canada. This will be an increase of over 80,000 more
people from the current level of around 270,000. I also expect them to provide a pathway for
TFWs to become permanent residents meaning TFWs aren’t really TFWs at all but,
like refugees, immigrants by another stream.
Speaking of refugees expect more of them. Perhaps even asylum for all the illegals.

Monday, 29 August 2016

If you’re
opponent isn’t calling you the next Hitler then they’re most likely asking you to think of the Syrian refugee children. As
common as is the ad hominem is the appeal to emotion fallacy. They are arguments that seek validation by
making us feel a certain way but just because an argument makes us feel a
certain way doesn’t make it an argument because feelings aren’t arguments.

One way is to appeal to our sense of compassion. This was most evident in the case of Alan Kurdi. Photos of his lifeless body lying
on a Mediterranean shore became an argument for Canada opening its
borders to Syrian refugee resettlement.
Dismissing the fact that little Alan’s death had more to do with
paternal negligence than it had with the Syrian refugee crisis his death is not
an argument to bring in 50,000 Syrian refugees.
Allowing 50,000 Syrians to effectively immigrate to Canada won’t
accomplish much aside from allowing Canada’s virtue signaling class to parade
like moral peacocks on social media and make them feel good about
themselves. Syria is still a destabilized country that, according to the UN, has produced an estimated 6.6 million internally displaced persons and has sent over 4.8 million to seek refuge abroad primarily in camps in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. Removing 50,000 of them
won’t make much of a difference. The money and resources being spent to resettle a select 50,000 people would have
gone further and benefited more had it been utilized in the camps. This would allow the refugees to stay in the
region and hopefully return to rebuild their country and lives at a future date.
Indeed, what are we really accomplishing if what we are doing is
removing the very skilled people Syria is going to need to rebuild itself? It seems we’re doing more harm than good when
you look at it that way but then again poaching the developing the world of its skilled talent is what Canada does best.
While Canada is committed to helping the refugees of the world
resettling them in Canada is not necessarily the best option since doing so
introduces a new set problems such as integration challenges, job skills
training, language training, stresses they place on the communities they settle
in, and so on.

Another way
our emotions are tickled is to flatter us by saying how a wonderful, tolerant,
accepting people we are and variations on that theme. While it’s nice to be called those things they're completely irrelevant. It shouldn’t distract us from the fact that there are
problems with the immigration system and that there are legitimate concerns of
the host society that need addressing.
Ignoring those will make us wonderful, tolerant, and accepting to a
fault.

In essence
arguments advanced whose only purpose is to make us feel pitiful or prideful or
angry are arguments seeking to appeal to our emotional and therefore irrational
self which is where they draw their strength from. They aren't arguments because, as I wrote earlier, feelings aren't arguments.

Saturday, 20 August 2016

When the
current Minister of Immigration, John McCallum, announced Canada was opening
its border even wider to immigrants while the rest of the world seemed to be
closing theirs part of his reasoning was that Canada was continuing a tradition
of immigration based on compassion. In doing so he committed two logical
fallacies in one sentence. Logical
fallacies are commonly employed by the pro-mass immigration crowd so I figure I
might as well tackle the ones I’ve encountered over the years.

My feelings
on logical fallacies are mixed because in debates about any topic the one who
incessantly points out logical fallacies tends to be some pedantic twerp who
cares more about pointing out the fallacies than actually discussing the issue. I think they believe doing so makes them look
smart. It gets annoying, inviting your
fist to their mouth as the only satisfactory retort to their nitpicking. However, it doesn’t mean they’re wrong and they
do have a point.

Furthermore,
I intended this to be a single post but in writing it I found it becoming quite
lengthy so I decided to break it up into a series of posts addressing one
fallacy at a time. I’ve found that there
is nothing more off putting to the short attention span, tl;dr, internet age
that we live in than a lengthy blog post, a crime I've committed many times before and appear to be in the act of committing
right now. So let’s get started.

The Ad Hominem

Let’s get
this one out of the way first because it’s one of the most common logical
fallacies readily employed by mass immigration proponents too intellectually
lazy or too intellectually ill equipped (by which I mean stupid) or just too
cowardly to discuss the issue as mature adults.

The ad hominem
fallacy is the name calling debate tactic.
Its purpose is to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger. Hopefully it will derail or shut down the debate by forcing the messenger to defend
his or her character to the satisfaction of the arbitrary criteria of the name
caller instead of arguing their position.

When it comes to discussing immigration ad hominem attacks encompass
accusations of being a racist, xenophobe, Islamophobe, bigot, redneck,
right-wing extremist, nationalist, white nationalist, white supremacist, and so
on. The fallacy of the ad hominem is
that it seeks to conflate the merits of what is being said with who is saying
it even though one is not dependent upon the other. The Big Bang Theory is not invalidated by the
fact a devout Catholic Priest was the one who first proposed it giving way to
early criticisms of it of being "creationism in disguise.” Likewise, valid
criticisms of the immigration system are not invalidated if presented by the
most unrepentant racist ever to walk the planet.

If you find
yourself in a debate and your opponent can do nothing but hurl ad hominem mud then consider yourself the victor.
It’s also best not to further engage this person because you’ll just be
wasting your time. Just give them a
lollipop and a colouring book and direct them to their safe space where their
fragile world view cannot be challenged, where they’re always right, and where
everyone gets to ride the rides for free except for you, of course, because
you’re a f**king racist.

Sunday, 17 July 2016

So says the OECD but what do they know? It's sunny ways here in Canada or haven't they heard? Our out-to-lunch (and seemingly always out of the country) PM says so.

Besides, we're importing even more immigrants this year and the years to come. True, they're mostly the C and D students of the developing world along with illiterate-in-their-own-language refugees and the useless "sponsored" relatives of immigrants. But unlike the previous waves of immigrants who have failed to provide any real economic benefits to the country these ones are different and will create the jobs that will put us back on track because of neoclassical economics and reasons, I guess.

Monday, 11 July 2016

Were that assumption true Ontario wouldn't be in the mess it's in. For
decades Ontario has been receiving the lion’s share of immigrants.Based on the assumptions of immigration
proponents Ontario’s economy should be booming thanks to all the jobs
immigrants have created and economic activity they generate but it turns out that's not the case.Today Ontario carries a
considerable debt burden and is now a “have not” province when at one time it
was the economic engine of the country sending more tax dollars to Ottawa than
it received.Decades of mass immigration
to the province has failed to stave off Ontario’s economic decline and now even
immigrants are avoiding it to go be a burden somewhere else in the country I imagine.Using immigration to propel population growth only makes sense when it was essential to build a strong domestic market for domestically made goods, i.e. create a support base for a manufacturing sector and the relatively high paying jobs it provides. But in today's globalized world a strong domestic market is not necessary for a Canadian company to compete internationally. All we're doing now is growing a population that buys goods made elsewhere. They do increase demand for services but is a service based economy better off than one that has a strong manufacturing sector?Immigrants shunning Ontario should be seen as a canary in the coal mine to politicians and economists but it won't. We have to ask ourselves where the hell in Canada are they going to go? Are they going to B.C. to sell real-estate to unscrupulous, parasitic Chinese multimillionaires with more money than scruples? Are they going to dig up dirty oil or herd cattle in Alberta? Are they going to go dig up potash in Saskatchewan or go fishing in Newfoundland? Because all they seem to be doing here in Ontario is provide demand for the housing market doing whatever the hell it is they do to make their monthly mortgage payments which I'm positive the powers that be know they won't be able to afford once interest rates increase.

It’s bad
enough close to $1 billion of our tax dollars has been allocated to relocate you
to our shores the least you could do is not complain about it. Canadians are weary enough of refugees already so it’s
best not to give us more reasons to be even wearier of refugees as if we need
more reasons.

And since I’m
talking about it here are more signs you might not be a refugee.

If even one
of these describes you then you’re probable not a refugee but that’s not a
problem. We have an entire industry staffed
by people whose livelihoods depend on your patronage and will help you fake it ‘til
you make it even though they know you’re phonier than the danger you're purportedly fleeing. When it comes to making a living they don’t
care who you are just as long they get paid.

Reminds me of the time another man of Asian heritage said some sensible things about immigration sending Canada's virtue-signalling class and careerist political hacks into a frenzy.

They both make sense.

Refuge should be temporary and not a path to permanent settlement. That's why they're called refugees and not immigrants. You don't turn the gazebo in a public park into your permanent home just because you sought refuge there from a passing rainstorm. Allowing refugees to become citizens makes them immigrants which is what we have done here in Canada. It's why oh so many alleged refugees seek to scam our lax refugee system and why critics label these people as "self selecting immigrants" and not refugees. They didn't come to Canada to find refuge. Oftentimes that can be found in their native countries and if not there then in neighbouring states. No, they've come to Canada because they want to immigrate and then import their families.

Furthermore, not only has the massive influx of migrants into Europe destabilized the EU - a wake up call to open borders proponents and theirs calls for unfettered, unrestricted immigration - it threatens the unique character of Europe and it's member states. Germany should remain German and not become another Arab majority country. Allowing this to happen makes the world less diverse and less multicultural and aren't diversity and multiculturalism values we're supposed to be fostering?

Also, the carrying capacity of every country is finite. Though Canada's landmass is large much of the country is inhospitable to massive human settlement forcing population growth in select pockets of the country which, unfortunately, happen to reside on the nation's richest farming land. These areas will become overpopulated with the attendant sub-par living standards. If landmass is all that matters then good news! There's swaths of cheap land located in north Africa you might be interested in buying.

Wednesday, 25 May 2016

I came across this blog post about Canada's erstwhile Minister of Immigration Jason Kenney and learned an interesting fact about the CPC's alleged gains among immigrant voters in the federal election of 2011 where the party secured its majority.

It turns out the seats they won in the nation's urban areas - particularly Toronto which has a high immigrant and non-white electorate - were won not on newly acquired votes from immigrants but on vote splitting between Canada's two left of center parties, the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party. It appears "new Canadians" who supported the LPC in previous elections just shifted their vote to the NDP in 2011. This allowed the CPC to win those seats where the shift was significant enough to allow them to waltz right up the middle of a split vote.

Looks like immigrants aren't the friends of the CPC after all despite all the efforts made to buy their support with reckless promises of faster, laxer, and more open immigration. Why should they support the CPC at all when the LPC and the NDP are promising immigrants the same gifts and more if need be?

This is a problem the Conservatives have to acknowledge and it's one they partially brought upon themselves. While the Pierre Trudeau Liberals are often blamed for cynically manipulating the immigration system for party advantage it was Brain Mulroney and the then Progressive Conservative Party of Canada that let the system really get out of control. Also, when the CPC was in power they imported record numbers of immigrants even in a time of economic downturn thinking they could beat the Liberals at their own game when all they really accomplished was inflate the support base of their political rivals by importing future LPC and NDP voters. Way to go morons!

The Conservatives need to start acting like conservatives which means adopting a conservative approach to immigration because pandering to the immigrant/ethnic vote bloc doesn't and didn't work. If they did they would nicely align themselves with the wishes of most Canadians. Besides, there is something very undemocratic and unnerving that a minority, foreign born portion of the population has so much influence over a policy that can vastly alter the future demographic makeup of the country. We need a party that listens to the majority, not another one that ignores them to pander to the minority.

Monday, 9 May 2016

I’ve come
across many attempts to define what multiculturalism is and most of them are
wanting but not for a lack of trying. They
seem vague and unsure of themselves. I
find multiculturalism as a concept so ill-defined that I don’t think anyone
really knows how to actually describe it without resorting to platitudes and
appealing to the broad ideals of mutual respect and tolerance. That is until I watched this video in which
its creator states that diversity just creates social
problems where none existed before and I said “That’s it!” That’s exactly what multiculturalism is. It’s a government program that only creates
problems where there weren’t problems before.

It’s
getting tiresome to read and hear comments stating Canada has always been a
multicultural country being ignorant of the fact that multiculturalism as
social policy was born out of political convenience for the Liberal Party of Canada in the early 1970s. Prior to that
Canada was very confident and comfortable with itself being a country of the
British Commonwealth founded by the English and French languages; by European
settlers; and rooted in European thought, culture, and traditions. Everything was
going great until some pompous ass came along and f**ked everything up.

Multiculturalism
has not contributed anything of significant worth to Canada or to Canadians. It exists solely as a political tool to
manipulate ethnic voting blocs into delivering their votes to a particular
political party come election day which was its initial intent all along. Outside of that all it has done for us is
disrupt social cohesion by fragmenting our cities into ethnic enclaves/colonies. It produces societal headaches by fostering
resentment among ethnic groups who seek political power and influence by
competing with each other for government largesse. Because of multiculturalism governmental
affairs are now bogged down with identity politics distracting it from
addressing more pertinent concerns which it would be doing were it not allowed
to distract itself with multicultural non-issues in the first place. It lets government appear to govern without actually governing.

Multiculturalism
is political rent seeking. It’s the government
creating a problem and then offering itself as the solution to the problem it
created. Millions of tax dollars are
wasted to fund the new layers of bureaucracy that multiculturalism needs for
its administration. Millions of tax
dollars are doled out each year to curry support from ethnic vote banks to fund
their organizations, community centers, and festivals which we don’t go to
because, frankly, we don’t give a s**t about their culture. This money could have been put to better
use to serve the real needs of Canadians if multiculturalism didn’t exist.

Multiculturalism
is a hollow idea. It’s a
non-identity. It has done nothing for us
as a country and denies Canadians the ability to create a unique character and
voice on the world stage. It robs
communities of local culture and nations of its character. It needs to be thrown into the trash can of
bad ideas where it belongs.

Tuesday, 26 April 2016

I don’t know
about you but it seems Justin Trudeau has spent more time outside the
country than in it ever since the Liberals won the federal election back in
November of 2015 but I think it’s because Justin is so awesome and it's unfair to the whole of the world if Canadians hog that awesomeness all to themselves. You see, Justin is so
awesome that Canada is too vast, her audience too small to contain and bear
witness to the awesomeness that is Justin Trudeau. Justin knows this so almost immediately after
the Liberals won the election that terrible day back in November he embarked on
his “Justin Trudeau Is So Awesome” world tour because it would be a crime
against humanity to deny the people of the world the opportunity to bask in his
awesomeness. He is after all God’s gift
to Canada and Canada’s gift to the world.

I don’t believe he gives a damn about climate change. I think he’s using it as a platform to
champion with hopes it will net him a nod from Stockholm. It also feeds his messiah complex. It’s all about him really. Everything, be it the election, gender
equality, or climate change. It’s a
means to generate narcissistic supply for the narcissistic Prime Minister and
mine adoration from a sycophantic press and a fan base of half-wits.

Were he
truly concerned about climate change his party wouldn’t be so determined to
shovel more people into the country especially from nations with a lower carbon
footprint per capita than Canada. This
is because Canadians have one of the largest carbon footprints in the world. To put this in perspective, while China is
the biggest global producer of CO2 emissions it also has the largest population
in the world and broken down per capita Canadians are bigger producers of CO2 emissions than the Chinese. Yet
China is a top source of immigrants to Canada as is India and the
Philippines. Immigrants from these
countries, and elsewhere, increase their carbon footprint simply by moving to
Canada.

Canadians’
largecarbonfootprint may have to do with the fact that Canada is a northern
country with long, cold, dark winters and short hot summers. It’s a vast country with a relatively sparse
population. To stay warm during the
winters, cool in the summers, and to generally traverse its great expanse
requires the consumption of inordinate amount of resources. This may help explain why Canada is warming twice the global rate. Canada isn’t
suitable to hosting a large population.

Whether you
accept climate change is real or not is up to you. However Justin Trudeau has made it very clear
it’s very real and very important to him.
When the next election rolls around another one million more people
would have been imported into the country increasing their carbon footprint and
Canada’s as well. Allowing that, coupled
with his international playboy-esque jet setting, if climate change really
matters to Justin Trudeau he has a funny way of showing it.

Tuesday, 19 April 2016

Proponents
of mass immigration often point out how immigration contributes positively to increasing
the country’s GDP. While this may be
true it doesn’t provide a complete picture because GDP doesn’t measure the
overall standard of living or quality of life of a population.

A nation’s
GDP can increase while the quality of life of its citizens can stagnate even decline. For example an individual can
work twelve hour days, seven days a week and that will contribute to the GDP but not provide a very favourable lifestyle. However if this individual decided
to take a day off each week for leisurely pursuits then this wouldn’t be
recorded in GDP measurements since leisure isn’t measured but that leisure time would improve that individual's quality of life. And a life of constant work, especially at a
job that brings little fulfillment beyond financial need, with no time for
leisure is a life not worth living.

Let’s look
at the obvious fact that immigrants take up space. This means they drive up demand for housing. They also buy and drive cars. They also get sick and need to see a
doctor. They also need a job to pay for
all of this among other things. All of this
contributes to growing the GDP since their demand for goods and services is a
measurable activity when calculating GDP numbers.

However, by
driving up the demand for housing they also drive up the cost of living since the
suppliers of housing can increase prices.
This means more disposable income is going to housing instead of meeting other needs. They drive cars and clog up our already
clogged up highways and city streets causing greater commute times and lost productivity to say nothing of the pollution they create. When they get sick they fill up our emergency rooms
and hospitals giving Canada one of the worst wait times in the industrialized world. None of this is taken into
account in measuring the GDP. As for
incomes immigration has had little if any positive effect on income levels and
most likely helps to keep real incomes stagnant which means more money is going
to pay for your car you drive to your job to make an income to pay for the
increasing cost of living. As for
leisure time f**k that! Who has time for
that when you need to work all the time because you don’t make enough money at
your job because mass immigration has saturated the job market? That is if you can find a job that provides
an income you can live on. There are
also the negative effects on one’s mental and physical health due to urban sprawl and densification, the loss of green spaces and arable land, effects on
social cohesion, and so forth.

GDP is a dubious metric to begin. To be honest I'm suspect of Canada's GDP numbers since Canadians have to assume record levels of debt to maintain the illusion of prosperity. But saying mass
immigration contributes to positive GDP growth is a disarming tactic because it
implies that a growing GDP begets net benefits for the country and therefore the
entirety of Canadian society and who can be against that? But GDP is used to mask the quality of life diminishing
problems mass immigration creates. Indeed, while it’s arguable that immigration has contributed positively to
growing Canada’s GDP it can be equally argued, quite persuasively, that it has
negatively affected the quality of life for Canadians especially for us who
live in the nation’s largest cities. And since 30%, if not more, of Canada's GDP is composed of real estate and the service sector I'm cynical enough to believe mass immigration is being used to buoy Canada's otherwise weak economy the way China used rampant property development to inflate it's suspect GDP numbers.

An enterprising Sikh in B.C. at the time chartered a Japanese boat and sold passage to Canada to mostly fellow Sikhs back in the Punjab in British controlled India. They sailed to Canada after departing from Hong Kong and arrived in Vancouver harbour expecting to disembark and bhangra their way right into the country because f**k Canadian sovereignty. But the Canadian government wouldn't have it and so the Sikhs became restless and acted like violent retards. After a two month stand-off Canada said "f**k this sh*t" and sent the boat packing with an armed escort into international waters to arrive in India where it's passengers refused to acquiesce to demands by the British to disembark. And then they proceeded to act like violent retards. A riot ensued and the British said "f**k this sh*t" and opened fire. People died.

And it's our fault.

And we're sorry.

We're sorry we didn't let you break our laws and crash our borders because if we did then you wouldn't have acted like violent retards and got some people killed. Because acting like violent retards is kinda your thing but that's our fault too I guess. So what I'm trying to say is I'm sorry, I think, because it's our fault, or my fault, or something.

Hey, did anybody see my car? It's a white Volkswagon Tiguan with plates WHTGLT. I left it around 124th street and Old Yale Rd in Surrey, B.C.; in the Khalsa School parking lot to be precise. I left it there to go see a doctor about getting a refill on my medicine. If anybody finds it you know how to contact me.